Is this the nanny state going much too far, or are the courts right to take the child away from her mother because she is too fat?

"An obese 12-year-old girl has been taken from her mother after doctors found her BMI is at a 'dangerously high level'.

The child, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was taken into foster care when medical and social staff started to fear for her safety.

Her mother could lose custody of her after the local council took out legal action against her.

Details of the case have emerged in a ruling by Judge Clifford Bellamy, who discussed preliminary issues at a private family court hearing. Judge Bellamy, who is based in Leicester, said no-one involved in the case could be identified, and the exact weight of the youngster remains unknown.

He explained that a doctor had examined the girl a few months ago and concluded her body mass index was at a 'dangerously high level'.

She has been taken into care, while decisions about her long-term future are in the hands of social services.

The judge said medical experts will give evidence on the state of her health at a later hearing."

magica wrote:Taking a child away from their parents because they're overweight is wrong.

I'm so fed up with this nanny state we live in

On the other hand, what about the real nanny here? She can make dangerous decisions about herself, I don't give a sheit. But "nanny" doesn't give her a right to kill her child.

I think removing the child from that home is perfectly just and proper. Children aren't property.

No Quill, you’re wrong. That girl needs her mother. This is just adding fuel to an already dangerous fire. What next, I give my daughter too many Easter eggs and then she feels sick and I’m done for child abuse?

_________________No one ever made a difference by being like everyone else.

I think we take much too much for granted that our personal rights run directly to our children. They do not. Children are not personal possessions, but are granted to us 'in the best interests' of the child. Under that test, if you are not acting in the child's best interests, then you don't deserve him or her.

Original Quill wrote:Easter eggs are not a demonstrable ill. Obesity is.

I think we take much too much for granted that our personal rights run directly to our children. They do not. Children are not personal possessions, but are granted to us 'in the best interests' of the child. Under that test, if you are not acting in the child's best interests, then you don't deserve him or her.

Who granted my daughters to me and their mother?

_________________Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

Original Quill wrote:Easter eggs are not a demonstrable ill. Obesity is.

I think we take much too much for granted that our personal rights run directly to our children. They do not. Children are not personal possessions, but are granted to us 'in the best interests' of the child. Under that test, if you are not acting in the child's best interests, then you don't deserve him or her.

Who granted my daughters to me and their mother?

It's not a question of origins. That's a metaphysical matter.

The real issue is, what is in the best interests of the child? That framing has the practical consequence that the focus is on the well-being of the child.